Montebourg pointed out that the idea has already been on the agenda in Brussels when in 2008 European Commission José Manuel Barroso said countries could be forced to buy EU pollution permits if they want to trade with Europe. The idea, however, was scrapped when it failed to garner enough support.

The newly appointed minister, who is well known for his critical stance on globalisation, says a carbon tariff will help level the playing field on international trade.

“We must demand reciprocity,” Montebourg said, adding that such a measure would help protect local industry from unfair competition.

Paris backed away from its tariff plans in the wake of the inability of climate negotiators to agree to a robust deal in Copenhagen, later rebranding it as a “carbon inclusion mechanism.” The revised scheme would have required importers to purchase pollution permits from the EU’s emissions trading scheme (EU ETS).

But if the current government moves ahead with a similar measure it could prove to be a lightning rod for trading partners, many of which have been staunchly critical of Brussels’ inclusion of aviation into the ETS (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 17 May 2012).

In a bid to prove that the carbon tariff was not an attempt to protect local industries, the Sarkozy administration said the funds collected through the scheme could be used to fund low-carbon technologies in developing countries.

It is not clear if such an overture will be part of Montebourg’s plans moving forward, but in his interview, the minister did not shy away from protectionist language.

“The European Union will have to revise its totally liberal doctrine which is to say that it is forbidden to favour local industry,” Montebourg said.

ICTSD Reporting; “France plans to revive EU carbon tariff,” THE GUARDIAN, 18 May 2012; “French to revive Sarkozy’s EU carbon tariff idea,” EURACTIVE, 18 May 2012.

Meanwhile, the rapporteur on the European Parliament’s development committee has proposed that the bloc’s controversial export refunds be phased out by 2017, a suggestion now being reviewed by other parliamentarians on the committee ahead of a deadline for amendments in two weeks time. The proposal runs counter to the Commission’s insistence that no date should be set for ending the subsidies in the absence of a broader deal with trading partners - such as the accord foreseen under the WTO’s Doha talks.

Under ‘co-decision’ rules set out in the bloc’s Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament and farm ministers in the European Council are required to reach an agreement on the reform proposals tabled last October by the European Commission - prompting intricate political manoeuvring as various constituencies try to pursue different goals (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 17 October 2011).

“Member states are trying to stitch up deals between each other,” one Brussels-based source told Bridges.

Greening: “menu approach”?

Farm ministers argued that a “menu approach” that would allow EU member states to pick and choose between options would be preferable to the greening measures outlined by the Commission in October.

The Commission had initially outlined plans to introduce a new ‘green’ payment that would depend on farmers diversifying their crops, maintaining permanent grassland, and setting aside seven percent of arable land as ‘ecological focus areas.’

Several member states argued that the proposed criteria in all three areas should be made more flexible, with a number arguing that various types of farming should be considered ‘green by definition.’ The Commission had originally proposed that organic farming alone should be classed in this way.

A working document prepared by Luxembourg at the end of April foreshadowed many of the arguments raised by ministers in yesterday’s meeting - also proposing an ‘a la carte’ approach to greening measures that farmers could adopt, and broadening the definition of farmers that would be considered ‘green by definition.’

The environmental group Birdlife International was strongly critical of the draft. “If such a deal goes through, it would signal the end of any legitimacy of EU direct payments to farmers,” Ariel Brunner, head of EU policy at the organisation, said in a statement.

New loopholes

In remarks to Bridges, one government official who had been involved in the discussions acknowledged that environmentalist groups may be right to fear that the countries supporting the Luxembourg proposal could open up loopholes in new subsidy rules that would be hard to close.

“Those worries are well placed,” the source admitted.

On Friday, the Commission responded to the Luxembourg working document by circulating a confidential ‘concept note’ indicating that some elements of the original proposal could be made more flexible.

Farmers and others taking part in agro-environment schemes could be considered as fulfilling the greening requirements, the Commission suggested in the note. At the same time, additional flexibility could be introduced to the proposals on the maintenance of permanent grassland and crop diversification.

Commission “gives no ground”

At the same time, the Commission “gave no ground” on the push to establish a ‘menu’ of options which member states could choose between, one government source told Bridges.

“The strength of the three proposed greening measures lies in the fact that they are compulsory for almost all farmers, apply to the entire relevant area of their holding, and ensure a level-playing field in the Union,” the note says.

Countries espousing a menu approach included Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovenia, and the UK, sources said - although some also argued that more discussion over how best to pursue ‘greening’ was needed.

“Member states should be taking stronger environmental measures, rather than working at forming a consensus behind closed doors that will sink the Commission’s proposal,” Tony Long, director of WWF’s European Policy Office, said in a statement.

“The Council is intent on sacrificing the seven percent of Ecological Focus Areas, despite the best scientific advice,” he added.

Proposals for farmers to set aside seven percent of land as ecological focus areas - including land left fallow, terraces, landscape features, buffer strips, and afforested areas - have been criticised by a number of countries. Sources said that Hungary, Latvia, Sweden, Finland, Bulgaria, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Spain were unhappy with the current plans.

Farm groups: Ministers’ views are “welcome”

In contrast to environmentalists, farm groups expressed satisfaction to the direction of the debate. COPA-COGECA, the main lobby group for European farmers and cooperatives, said in a statement that the agriculture ministers’ views were “very much in-line with our demands.”

“We must ensure that measures to further green the CAP do not have a negative impact on farmers’ production capacity or costs,” Copa President Gerd Sonnleitner said. “And we must ensure that the greening measures are simple, practical, and fair.”

Export refunds: phasing out?

Birgit Schieber-Jastram, the rapporteur for the European Parliament’s development committee, has tabled a set of four draft opinions intended to bring the Commission’s new proposals in line with goals on international development. The opinions are due to be presented to the parliament’s committee on agriculture and rural development on 18-19 June, along with other proposed amendments tabled by the environment committee rapporteur.

The rapporteur’s draft opinion on the Commission’s proposal on the common market organisation for farm products states that “export refunds should be phased out by 2017.” Export subsidies have been widely criticised by developing country governments as well as by aid groups, who argue that these measures undermine the production capacity of local farmers in poor countries.

Other clauses affecting trade with developing countries include those stating that “specific attention shall be paid to eliminating unnecessary obstacles to exports from developing countries, and communicating changes of particular interest to these countries in due time,” and provisions affirming that subsidised exports “should not jeopardise the food production capacity and long term food security of developing countries.”

The proposals were welcomed by European development agencies such as CONCORD. “It’s perfectly feasible to phase out export refunds,” said Laust Leth Gregersen, CONCORD Denmark’s Policy Officer, in remarks to Bridges. Agricultural export subsidies were “damaging developing countries, and costly to European taxpayers,” he said.

Academic experts have also questioned the logic of the European Commission’s position on linking agricultural export subsidies to a wider Doha deal. “Export subsidies are a very expensive and costly way to provide support to farmers regardless of the outcome of the Doha Round,” Professor Alan Matthews of Trinity College Dublin has argued in an online commentary.

While the Commission’s original proposals would have provided scope for member states to continue providing some direct payments that are ‘coupled’ to production, and therefore more trade-distorting, Schieber-Jastram also tabled an amendment that would prevent governments from providing these payments after 2017.

Two further proposals relate to the functioning of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and to the financing, management, and monitoring of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Parliamentarians in the development committee have until 29 May to make any amendments to the rapporteur’s proposals before the opinions are presented to the agriculture committee in a month’s time.

Video of the European Council public debate on agriculture is online here.

ICTSD reporting.

Positions by the parties have not deviated significantly since the panel’s first hearing in March (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 28 March 2012). The opposing sides remain focused on whether the feed-in tariff scheme should be considered legitimate government procurement or an illegal subsidy. Oral statements, delivered on 15 May, delved into the details of the two positions, with each party expressing concern that arguments had not been advanced further.

There are two central questions that the panel is looking at to determine whether the scheme should be considered government procurement - and thus justified under WTO law. First, is the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) actually purchasing a good when it acquires energy from wind farms involved in the FIT scheme, or does it operate more as a fund or price support?  Second, what criteria or benchmarks should be used to determine whether the purchase price by the OPA is above market value and thus confers a benefit?

On the issue of benchmarking, Japan and the EU argue that the benchmark should be determined by the Hourly Ontario Energy Price (HOEP) - essentially the price consumers pay at the meter. They argue that because the price the OPA pays is significantly higher than the HOEP, the scheme is clearly a subsidy.

The Canadian delegation, however, insists that consumer prices do not reflect market standards for renewable energy, as the HOEP applies for “comingled or blended electricity” from different sources such as hydro, nuclear, solar, etc., which come with different production costs and characteristics.

“The final amount paid by the end-user … is reflective of the supply mix,” the Canadian delegation argued.  But the “differences in costs and inherent attributes are reflected in the different regulated and contractual rates paid to each type of generation by Ontario.”

“The different forms of energy do not compete with each other in Canada,” Canadian representative Raahool Watchmaker clarified.

Dispute panel member Alec Erwin (South Africa) notably questioned the EU and Japan as to how their respective markets operate to determine benchmarks and pricing, acknowledging that renewable energy sectors have not been flourishing in an unsupported marketplace. Both the EU and Japan were not immediately able to respond, but agreed to submit a response in writing.

Generally, the panel members focused heavily on the substantial and legal facts that could inform the decision on whether the FIT measure is government procurement or subsidisation. To some observers this came as a surprise, as many experts have argued that Canada fights an already lost battle, with the local content requirement being a clear violation of WTO law.

NGO submissions

On the sidelines of the formal meeting, two citizen groups drew attention to the climate change issues at stake by filing two amicus curiaesubmissions - unsolicited comments from non-governmental groups that mean to inform proceedings but that have no particular legal standing.

The first submission, sent by a coalition composed primarily of Canadian trade unions, focuses on the value of the Kyoto Protocol as a justification for Ontario’s approach.

“Ontario’s FIT program is a perfect expression of the principles of sustainable development in which environmental and economic goals are married to address the imperatives of climate change,” the amicus brief finds. “In accordance with its obligations under [the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] and the Kyoto Protocol, Ontario is not only seeking to increase the consumption of renewable energy but to facilitate the development of renewable energy infrastructure in Ontario.”

While Canada made headlines last December by announcing that it was withdrawing itself from Kyoto, many domestic environmental groups continue to push for the country to re-engage.

The second submission - compiled by a group of three environment-focused non-governmental organisations - takes a similar approach when arguing in favour of recognising environmental protection objectives as exceptions to the WTO’s subsidy rules.

“One of the most important routes for [climate change] action is via fiscal and regulatory policy that internalises environmental costs,” the submission reads. “However, the scale of the climate change problem dictates that this will not be sufficient; government support for early stage commercialisation of mitigation technologies [...] will also be necessary in some sectors.”

It is not clear whether the submissions will be considered by the dispute panel, but Chair of the panel Thomas Cottier (Switzerland) said that he would like them distributed to the parties. Japan and the EU both objected to inclusion of new arguments at such a late stage in the process, but acknowledged that the final decision was up to the panel.

The panel report is currently expected for September of this year.

ICTSD reporting.

The airlines missed a 31 March deadline to submit their emissions data to the EU. New Delhi and Beijing have been vocal opponents of the EU’s decision to include aviation in its Emissions Trading System (ETS), and have banned their country’s airlines from participating in the scheme without government approval.

“It’s up to member states to apply penalties,” EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told journalists on Tuesday.

“That would be the next step,” she added, should the airlines miss the new deadline.

The ten airlines involved represent less than three percent of emissions, and less than one percent of emission reports, according to the European Commission.

EU legislation requires airlines to surrender carbon permits for the emissions they produce during all flights taking off or landing in the 27-country bloc. Under the scheme, airlines are required to buy permits for 15 percent of the carbon they emit; permits for the remaining 85 percent will be provided to them for free. Carriers will have to surrender permits for 2012 carbon production by 30 April 2013.

Airlines that fly to the 27-country EU bloc without complying with the scheme will face a fine of €100 for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted and for which they have not paid allowances. Persistent offenders could face a blanket ban from all EU airports.

The rule has come under fire by various non-EU governments, which argue that Brussels is exceeding its legal jurisdiction by charging for aviation emissions over an entire flight, rather than just those in EU airspace.

In February, over 20 countries, including the US, Russia, China, and India, signed a joint declaration outlining agreed countermeasures for contravening the aviation component of the ETS. (See Bridges Trade BioRes, 23 February 2012).

China recently announced a new national plan to cut aviation emissions, which it says would make Chinese airlines exempt from the EU scheme. The EU ETS does not require countries with “equivalent measures” to participate. Hedegaard has said that Brussels is looking into Beijing’s plan.

As the pressure against the EU Commission revs up, Brussels has said it will stand by its decision to include aviation emissions in the scheme, promising to only consider changes to the rule should countries manage to put together a global aviation emissions agreement.

Industry opposition builds

Airline industry executives from both EU and non-EU countries have also lambasted the aviation emissions rule. Last week, two of Lufthansa’s top executives argued that the law would turn the European aviation industry into an uncompetitive “third league” sector in the global economy.

The German airline chiefs’ comments came while addressing shareholders at the company’s annual general meeting in Cologne, Germany last week.

The Lufthansa executives said that the inclusion of aviation in the Brussels scheme will spark a “trade war” if countries such as China and India retaliate with similar measures. Last week, Lufthansa reported a larger than expected first-quarter loss of €397 million.

The company says they expect profits for 2012 to fall to €500 million, from €820 million in 2011. Earlier this month, Lufthansa announced the retrenchment of 3,500 employees, according to the Wall Street Journal.

However, Lufthansa did not specify exactly what proportion of the losses can be attributed to the aviation clause in the ETS. Instead they aggregated the financial losses to a basket of reasons: rising fuel prices, international competition, Frankfurt’s night flight ban, air traffic taxes in Germany and Austria, the lack of a “European Single Sky,” and other regulatory costs.

The statement is the latest in a barrage of industry opposition against the inclusion of aviation emissions in the EU ETS.

Back in March, nine industry CEOs, including Airbus, Air France, and Lufthansa, wrote joint letters urging various European political leaders, including the prime ministers of the UK, France, and Spain, and Germany’s chancellor, to re-think the aviation component of the ETS (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 15 March 2012).

ICTSD reporting; “EU Says Nations May Penalize China, India on Aviation CO2 Data,” BLOOMBERG, 15 May 2012; “China’s Draft Climate Change Law Backs Continuation of CDM Projects,” THOMSON REUTERS POINT CARBON, 14 May 2012; “EU climate boss: studying China’s airline CO2 plan,” REUTERS, 19 April 2012; “EU climate boss: studying China’s airline CO2 plan,” REUTERS, 19 April 2012; “Lufthansa Takes EU to Task Over Regulation,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, 8 May 2012.

US dolphin-safe labelling practices under scrutiny

While the three judges sided with a previous WTO panel in their overall conclusion that the US label is inconsistent with the WTO’s Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), they overruled the earlier report on important points. Both parties had appealed the September 2011 panel ruling, challenging certain issues of law and legal interpretation by the panel. (See Bridges Weekly, 25 January 2012)

According to the three Appellate Body judges, the label discriminates against Mexican tuna by banning a fishing practice known as “purse-seine” nets - encircling nets that temporarily set on dolphins to attract the tuna that swim below - which are used almost exclusively by Mexican fisheries. In other parts of the world, purse-seine nets are of no use, as tuna and dolphin swarms only swim together in the Eastern Pacific. In effect, this means that the majority of Mexican tuna is not eligible for “dolphin-safe” labels, even where independent veterinarians certify that no dolphins were killed or injured during the specific catch.

Mexico’s tuna fleet continues to use purse-seine nets, but is nonetheless compliant with international standards - most notably the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP). Mexico, the US, and others had negotiated the AIDCP in response to an earlier international trade dispute between the countries over a similar issue.

Unlike the previous panel, the Appellate Body sided with Mexico in finding that the differential treatment affects Mexico’s export competitiveness. The judges further denied Washington’s claim that the differential treatment was exclusively due to a legitimate regulatory requirement.

In relying heavily on the panel’s earlier assessment of marine science, the Appellate Body came to the conclusion that there is no regulatory justification for the label to ban exclusively purse-seine nets and no other fishing practices. In fact, the Appellate Body found that the existing requirements of the US dolphin-safe label are insufficient to address dolphins harmed outside the Eastern Pacific by countries using other fishing techniques.

“The measure at issue does not address adverse effects on dolphins resulting from the use of fishing methods predominantly employed by fishing fleets supplying the United States’ and other countries’ tuna producers,” the judges said in their finding.

While the court ruling only requires the US to bring its labelling practice into compliance, without specifying the conditions, the legal assessment makes clear that cosmetic changes will not be sufficient. Ultimately, the measure will have to apply in an even-handed manner to all fishing techniques and regions.

“Risks to dolphins resulting from fishing methods other than setting on dolphins could only be monitored by imposing a different substantive requirement, i.e. that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured in the sets in which the tuna was caught,” the judges said.

However, Mexico failed to convince the court that the AIDCP qualified as an international standard and thus appropriate benchmark. The TBT Agreement mandates that, where relevant international standards exist, technical regulations must adopt their design. In overruling the panel, the Appellate Body disagreed that the AIDCP was an international standard, criticising that its membership is only open to non-member countries upon invitation.

Labelling policy “mandatory”, though no import pre-condition

Of greater systemic importance is the Appellate Body’s general finding that the measure at issue - the US label, which also does not permit labels that deploy another standard - is a mandatory technical regulation and thus subject to the TBT Agreement. The US had disputed this position, pointing to the fact that eligibility for the label was not an importation or marketing requirement. Instead, Washington maintained, the importance of the label was exclusively the result of consumer preference.

In siding with the panel experts, the judges criticised the US measure for establishing a single and legally mandated definition of the term “dolphin-safe”, whatever context it may be used in. “In doing so, the US measure prescribes in a broad and exhaustive manner the conditions that apply for making any assertion on a tuna product as to its ‘dolphin-safety’, regardless of the manner in which that statement is made,” the ruling concludes, referring to the question of whether the measure is mandatory and voluntary.

The ramifications of this finding for other labels are yet to be seen. But experts immediately point to the dispute of what the term “organic” means and whether organic can include genetically-modified organisms. With another label dispute in the pipeline - an Appellate Body decision in the COOL dispute is set to be released this summer - this year is set to enlighten the critical relationship of trade, market access, and labels.

Further analysis on the US-Tuna II Appellate Body ruling will be made available in next week’s Bridges.

ICTSD reporting.

The Rome-based Committee on World Food Security (CFS) announced the new guidelines on 11 May. The Voluntary Guidelines on ResponsibleGovernance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context ofNational Food Security seek to provide a basis by which to secure access to land, fisheries, and forests for vulnerable rural populations who have historical ties to the land they use, but who often have little legal standing.

The lack of formal documentation for local farmers, herders, and gatherers has, in the past, led to tensions between indigenous populations and the state, the latter of which officially owns the land.

The effort marks a “historic breakthrough,” UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Director-General José Graziano da Silva said on Friday.

Investment gains pitted against human rights concerns

The World Bank has reported a rapid increase in large scale land acquisitions in the aftermath of recent recurring surges in food prices. These overseas investments have often sought to secure export-oriented food supplies and biofuels, as well as ensuring access to other natural resources.

Proponents argue that big international deals bring much-needed investment and new technology that the region needs for development.

However, some human rights organisations have challenged this assumption by highlighting a number of high-profile cases in Africa, Asia, and Latin America where local populations have been removed from their ancestral lands to make way for large-scale foreign investors (see Bridges Weekly, 20 May 2009). Several hundred civil society organizations, including aid groups Oxfam and ActionAid, signed onto the Dakar AppealAgainst the land grab in 2011 calling for an enforcement of such rights.

Oxfam has pressed for the urgent implementation of the guidelines by nations, as it worries about “growing competition for natural resources and land grabbing continuing unchecked.”

The guidelines seek to address many of these concerns, stating that, “where transnational corporations are involved,” they have a responsibility “to ensure that businesses are not involved in abuse of human rights and legitimate tenure rights.”

Caution urged

“These changes won’t happen overnight,” Ambassador Yaya Olaniran, the Nigerian Permanent Representative to FAO and current CFS Chair, cautioned upon the announcement of the guidelines. “But we also know, as a result of the extensive consultations by FAO and the CFS-led negotiation process, that there is a lot of buy-in and support for the guidelines.”

Critics have also noted that ensuring the implementation of the guidelines could be difficult, given their voluntary nature. Others, however, have stressed that the guidelines are an important first step, in the absence of a binding agreement.

The guidelines have been garnering additional support in recent weeks,with a confidential report by international agencies for the leaders of the G-20 group of major economies urging their adoption (see Bridges Weekly, 9 May 2012). The report was prepared jointly by twelve organisations ahead of a meeting of deputy G-20 agriculture ministers in the Mexican resort of Los Cabos being held this week.

The FAO has committed to developing a series of technical handbooks designed to help countries adapt the guidelines to their local contexts and aid their implementation. The organisation has also pledged to extend targeted technical assistance to governments.

Investment principles next on agenda

Seeking to build on the voluntary guidelines - which state that potential investments should respect existing land rights and not jeopardise food security - the CFS will focus on what principles are necessary for “responsible agricultural investment.” The year-long consultative process is set to start in October, which could see a set of recommended principles being developed by late-2013.

ICTSD reporting; “UN says nations endorse anti-land grab policy,” ASSOCIATED PRESS, 12 May 2012; “UN adopts historic ‘land grab’ guidelines,” BBC NEWS, 11 May 2012; “Global UN-backed land use guidelines approved,” REUTERS AFRICA, 12 May 2012.

A SNAPSHOT OF CURRENT TRADE TRENDS IN POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS AND SERVICES. Published by APEC (April 2012). This publication finds that environmental goods and services (EGS) is a potentially huge market for the APEC region. While global trade grew at 11.6 percent per year from 2002 to 2010, EGS grew at rates between 12 to 17 percent during the same period. A significant proportion of this growth in EGS trade comes from developing economies in APEC. The author concludes by recommending further trade and investment liberalisation through tariff reduction, relaxation of over-stringent technical regulations, certification procedures, sectoral restrictions, among others. For the full article, please click here.

ONE PLANET TO SHARE: SUSTAINING HUMAN PROGRESS IN A CHANGING CLIMATE. Published by the UN Development Program (May 2012). This UNDP Asia Pacific human development report focuses on the need for the region to find ways to continue to grow economically while reducing poverty and tackling climate change and environmental concerns. The report provides a series of recommendations for adopting lower-carbon development path, including: encouraging the transition to green technologies; reducing industrial emissions; promoting greener agriculture; supporting cleaner energy generation; improving the prospects of the rural and urban poor; expanding sources of finance; strengthening climate knowledge for citizens awareness; and boosting trans-boundary cooperation. To read the full article, click here.

DRIVE ON BY? WILL UPCOMING MEETINGS IN BONN TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE PROGRESS ON ADDRESSING DRIVERS OF DEFORESTATION? A post on the Overseas Development Institute REDD+ blog (May 2012). Emily Brickell of the ODI points to the important discussions on drivers of deforestation at the REDD+ partnership meeting and the official negotiations in Bonn in the coming weeks in this blog post. To view the post, click here.

A HANDBOOK ON THE WTO TRIPS AGREEMENT. Published by the WTO and Cambridge University Press (2012). This publication details a comprehensive and non-technical explanation of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). It includes a guide to TRIPS notifications by WTO members and it also describes how to access and make use of the official documentation relating to the TRIPS Agreement. Topics covered include copyright and related rights, trademarks, geographical indications, patents, enforcement of intellectual property rights, dispute settlement in the context of the TRIPS Agreement, and current TRIPS issues. It is aimed at a variety of audiences, including government officials and policy-makers, non-governmental organisations, academics and students. For a preview, or to purchase a copy, please visit here.

FOOD SYSTEMS FAILURE: THE GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS AND THE FUTURE OF AGRICULTURE. Published by Routledge (November 2011). In light of the heightening food crisis, this book critically analyses the global food system, particularly the failure of neoliberal strategies which emphasise industrial efficiencies, commodity production and free trade-ideologies that underlie agricultural and food policies of developed countries. As a compilation of articles by leading international academics, food policy activists, climate scientists, ecologists and social scientists, this book identifies current contradictions in policy and practice that impede solutions to the food crisis. The publication concludes with strategies for creating a more equitable and moral food system. For more information, visit here.

20 YEARS OF TRADE POLICY REVIEWS 1989 -2009. Published by the WTO (March 2012). WTO has collated every Trade Policy Review publication from 1989 to 2009 in a double-DVD format. Under the WTO Trade Policy Review Mechanism, WTO members can examine the trade policies and practices of other members in all areas covered by the WTO agreements. By the end of 2009, 305 Trade Policy Reviews had been conducted, covering 136 of the 153 WTO members. For more information, click here.

THINKTOSUSTAIN.COM MONTHLY NEWSLETTER (April 2012). This month’s issue includes empirical studies on the following issue areas: India’s vulnerability to climate change, the environmental impact of using fertilisers, the social impact of building dams in West Africa, climate change mitigation strategies, among other topics. The newsletter summarises key findings of these studies done by institutions such as the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and UC Berkeley, and it also contains links to the original research articles. For more information, click here.

TAKING STOCK OF DURBAN: REVIEW OF KEY OUTCOMES AND THE ROAD AHEAD. Published by UNDP (April 2012). This publication contains a detailed analysis of what was achieved at the 2011 Durban Climate Change Conference and what needs to be done for the road ahead.  The paper finds that the Durban Conference could possibly be a “game-changing conference for the climate negotiations” because of a comprehensive package of decisions made by governments, including some that will help implement the 2010 Cancun Agreements and develop stronger requirements for the reporting and review of countries’ mitigation efforts. For the full report, click here.

BEYOND BOOM AND BUST: PUTTING CLEAN TECH ON A PATH TO SUBSIDY INDEPENDENCE. Jointly published by Brookings Institute, World Resources Institute and Breakthrough Institute (April 2012). This report argues that nearly all clean tech segments in the United States remain reliant on production and deployment subsidies to gain an expanding foothold in today’s energy markets. The report aims to take stock of the coming changes to federal clean tech subsidies and programs (Part 1); examine their likely impact on key clean tech market segments (Part 2); and lay out two policy reforms that can advance the US clean tech industry beyond today’s policy-induced cycle of boom and bust (Part 3). The authors argue that the expiry of federal subsidies and programs come may provide an opportunity for needed reform and further industry growth. The end of the present policy regime therefore offers the opportunity to implement smart reforms that not only avoid a potential “clean tech crash”. To read the full article, click here.

WILL THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION ENJOY A BRIGHTER FUTURE? Published by the Peterson Institute for International Economics (May 2012). To this question, the authors’ answer is yes. They argue that despite the ten-year stalemate on the Doha Development Agenda, national leaders will seek to reinvent the WTO along plurilateral lines rather than let it slide into obsolescence. The scope of the paper is as follows: First, the authors analyse what went wrong with Doha; second, they isolate parts of the Doha agenda that can be salvaged in the plurilateral context; third, they examine the key challenges of keeping plurilateral bargains within the WTO tent; finally, the authors highlight five topics that they say should be served up for plurilateral talks in 2013. To access the article, click here.

BUILDING INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE COOPERATION: LESSONS FROM THE WEAPONS AND TRADE REGIMES FOR ACHIEVING INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE GOALS. Published by the World Resources Institute (May 2012). This report analyses the successes and failures of the weapons and trade regimes, and subsequently it compares these lessons to what has been tried in the climate regime. The last part of the publication offers suggestions on the structure of a governance system that will enhance the chances of attaining global action to control greenhouse gas emissions. A principal conclusion is that countries seeking to control greenhouse gas emissions should consider a wider variety of experiences and potential pathways than are currently under consideration, in an effort to consider all options that achieve emissions reductions. For the full article, click here.

Coming up in the next two weeks (14-28 May)

14-25 May, Bonn, Germany. BONN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE. This event, organised by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is the annual mid-year negotiating session for parties to the Convention. The meeting will host the 36th sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), the fifteenth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA), the seventeenth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the first session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP). For more information, visit the UNFCCC website.

16-18 May, Manila, the Philippines. PRODUCTION NETWORKS AND TRADE POLICY IN TURBULENT TIMES. This event, hosted by the Asian Development Bank, aims to provide senior trade officials from Asia and the Pacific an opportunity to examine the impact of changing trade patterns on production networks in Asia and related policy implications. This will be the second capacity building activity of the Asian International Economists Network (AIEN). For more information, click here.

17 May, Washington, US. HEMISPHERIC DIALOGUE ON IMPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR THROUGH LAW AND INSTITUTIONS. This event, organised by the Organization of American States, is the eighth dialogue in the series of “hemispheric dialogues” on sustainable development themes intended to generate recommendations on institutions and governance for sustainable development for both US Congress and for the Rio+20 conference. The dialogue will focus on private sector environmental performance, and the legal and institutional conditions that organisers say are needed to improve the private sector’s environmental performance. For more information, click here.

19 May, Bonn, Germany. IMPROVING LINKS BETWEEN USE AND PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE. In tandem with the UNFCCC Bonn Climate Change Conference, Climate & Development Knowledge Brokers (CDKN) will be holding a session aimed at providing decision makers, negotiators, and practitioners who are active in the climate and development field with an opportunity to meet other leading knowledge brokers in the sector. Organisers say participants will learn about climate information platforms, portals and other useful services. This session will be led by IISD and IDS during the weekend intermission of the Bonn Conference. For more information, visit CDKN’s webpage.

21 May, Bonn, Germany. ADDRESSING CARBON LEAKAGE AND COMPETITIVENESS CONCERNS FOR ENHANCED MITIGATION ACTION. This ICTSD side-event held on the sidelines of the Bonn Climate Change Conference will address concerns for carbon leakage and competitiveness distortions and how these two issues might prevent effective mitigation action. The event will also address the use of unilateral measures, which organisers say can be a source of tension. The session will assess the risks and explore solutions so as to enhance ambition on mitigation. For more information, visit the ICTSD website.

21-23 May, Boston, US. GLOBAL CONFERENCE ON OCEANS, CLIMATE AND SECURITY. This conference, organised by the Collaborative Institute for Oceans, Climate and Security of the University of Massachusetts Boston, aims to bring together scientists, policy makers, and intellectual leaders to discuss the inter-connectedness between oceans, climate and security, and will consist of keynote speakers and panels dealing with both policy and science issues, and a plenary focusing on methods of communicating issues associated with climate change impacts. For more information, please click here.

21-25 May, Rome, Italy. TWENTY-THIRD SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE: SUSTAINABLE CROP PRODUCTION INTENSIFICATION. This event, organised by the Committee on Agriculture (COAG), will evaluate the implementation of FAO Strategy for Sustainable Crop Production Intensification (SCPI) in 2010-2011 through an ecosystem approach and an enabling environment. It will propose a revised title for the Strategy and sets out major activities in a programme for 2012-2015, and a broader undertaking of SCPI’s proposed programme for activities until 2025. For the meeting’s provisional agenda and other documents, please see FAO webpage.

22-25 May, Brussels, Belgium. GREEN WEEK CONFERENCE 2012: THE WATER CHALLENGE. This conference, billed as “the biggest annual conference on European environment policy,” will focus on a range of issues related to water. Efficiency, pollution, and best practices for conservation will all be discussed. Organisers say participants will represent a variety of fields, including government, business and industry, non-governmental organisations, academia, and the media. For more information, click here.

24 May, Online. THE IMPORTANCE OF RIO+20. This webinar, hosted by The International Society of Sustainability Professionals (ISSP), will have two presentations and a panel discussion to raise awareness on the two themes of Rio+20: 1) a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and 2) the institutional framework for sustainable development. The panel is represented across governmental, NGO, and corporate business standpoints. For more information, please visit ISSP’s webpage.

Other Upcoming Events

24-26 September, Geneva, Switzerland. WTO PUBLIC FORUM 2012. Convening under the theme “Is multilateralism in crisis?”, the Public Forum is the WTO’s largest annual outreach event. It aims to provide a platform for participants to discuss the latest developments in world trade and to propose ways of enhancing the multilateral trading system. The event regularly attracts over 1,500 representatives from civil society, academia, business, the media, governments, parliamentarians, and intergovernmental organisations. For more details about this event, visit the WTO’s website.

Trade issues continue to play a role in international climate change negotiations. Last December’s Durban meet established a permanent forum on so-called “response measures,”  which deal with the social and economic impacts that countries could experience as a result of the policies and measures that other countries take to mitigate climate change. The issue has long been a hot-topic for several countries, given the traditional fears over protectionism and possible future hardships faced by oil-producing countries as renewable energy initiatives ramp-up.

The Bonn mid-year sessions will host the first meetings of the permanent forum, which will be convened by the Chairs of the Subsidiary Bodies. The issue of response measures has been particularly divisive between Annex I and non-Annex I countries, with several developed countries expressing concern that the concept could be used as a loophole for some developing countries to be less accountable for their emissions. The issue is expected to provoke intense debate as parties search for common ground.

The other major trade-related issue to emerge from Durban was the advancement of discussions on the operationalisation of the “Technology Mechanism,” which will play a central role in the development of climate mitigating technology and manage the process of technology exchange from Annex I to non-Annex I (developing) countries. The Mechanism has been one of the few UNFCCC issues that have been noticeably active over the past six months, and that progress is expected to continue in Bonn.

Response Measures

The majority of agenda items for Bonn are expected to focus on establishing an agenda and the negotiating structures required to operationalise the Durban Platform discussions. But while the bulk of issues facing the forum will likely fall under this “structural” umbrella, but sources close to the talks say the ambiguity of some language used in establishing the response measures forum could hold up progress.

According to the deal struck in Durban, the forum has been tasked with implementing the “Work Programme on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures,” and consolidating all discussions related to response measures under the UNFCCC.

Sources say there are questions as to whether the Forum will address the structure and function of the Forum itself or also other “related agenda items” - Kyoto Protocol Articles 2.3 and 3.14; UNFCCC Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9; and UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.10 - which have strong economic and trade implications. The Chairs’ are reportedly expecting to experience difficulty adopting the provisional agenda because Parties will likely disagree on what related items will be discussed under the Forum.

Already this year, the Chairs of the Subsidiary Bodies - the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), who will be convening the Forum - contacted parties asking them for their views on how to conduct the first meeting.

The Chairs asked for input on how to make the meeting “efficient,” “informative,” and “productive” and posed a series of questions regarding the organisational structure of the meeting, agreement on the sequence of issues to be considered, the likelihood of scheduling 2012-2013 workshops, and the financial implications of the work programme. Several parties have reportedly responded to the questions.

The Forum is tentatively set to meet for four 90 minute sessions in Bonn on 17 May, 18 May, 19 May, and 21 May.

Movement expected on Technology Mechanism

Discussions aimed at operationalising the Technology Mechanism will likely see progress over the next two weeks. The goal of the Mechanism - which was agreed upon at COP 16 in Cancun and further fleshed out in Durban - is to enhance action for technology development and transfer in support of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The policy body of the Mechanism - the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) - is already in place and has met twice. However, the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN), the operational arm of the Mechanism, has not yet been established.

Earlier this year, the UNFCCC Secretariat issued a call for applications for prospective hosts for the Climate Technology Centre (CTC), which will steer the Network. In April, three candidates were shortlisted by an evaluation panel comprised of TEC members: a consortium led by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and Norway’s Det Norske Veritas. Six other proposals from organisations based in China, Costa Rica, Germany, India, Indonesia, and Iran did not make the short list. The panel report which outlines the decision is available here.

The Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) at Bonn is expected to consider the report of the evaluation panel and particularly discuss the selection of the host for the Centre and the constitution of its advisory board. It will then forward a recommendation to the COP in Doha, Qatar for final consideration, which according to the UNFCCC Secretariat, should make the Mechanism fully operational by 2013.

Meanwhile, the Executive Committee agreed on a rolling work plan which sets out its activities for the next two years at its meeting last February (See Bridges Trade BioRes, 7 March 2012). The group’s next meeting is scheduled for 28-29 May - immediately following the meetings of the subsidiary bodies. It will feature a thematic dialogue on enabling environments and barriers to technology development and transfer in which ICTSD, the publisher of BioRes, will participate.

Common but not-so-differentiated responsibility?

The traditional developed-developing country divide is nothing new for international climate change meetings. But many questions are up in the air over how the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol will unfold and how the newly-established Durban Platform will manage the complex issue of Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR), whereby only Annex I countries have quantified emissions reduction obligations.

The notion that developed countries are responsible for the lion’s share of the historical carbon emissions that were produced during their industrialisation process is a centrepiece of the Kyoto Protocol. But with increased emissions from industrial juggernauts like India and China - the latter of which is now the world’s largest polluter - over the past two decades, many developed countries are insisting that the concept be re-defined.

Many developed countries have insisted that the participation of all major emitters is essential to any international climate regime. The United States never ratified Kyoto primarily because of the lack of binding commitments from industrial developing countries and Canada, for its part, withdrew from the Protocol almost immediately after last year’s COP.

Emerging economies, however, are not keen to move away from the advantageous position afforded to them through CBDR. Leaders of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) earlier this year underscored the fact that they view the principle as central to moving forward on climate change negotiations.

“We welcome the significant outcomes of [COP 17] and are ready to work with the international community to implement its decisions in accordance with the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,” the BRICS Summit Delhi Declaration reads.

The Durban Platform, however, makes no mention of CBDR, and negotiations in Bonn will likely give some indication as to how the issue will move forward.

European financial woes

Traditionally the leader of developed country parties in making aggressive climate change commitments, the European Union is struggling with a range of complex internal issues, leading many observers to question whether these difficulties might soon prompt attitude changes from  the 27-country bloc.

Brussels continues to face widespread opposition from both developed and developing countries to its controversial decision to include aviation under its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), with India’s environment minister notably calling the move a “deal breaker” for global climate talks.

Europe’s commitment to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) - which aims to channel some US$100 billion annually by 2020 to help developing countries cope with the effects of climate change - was also called into question earlier this month when officials meeting in Bonn failed to commit to financing beyond 2012.

Many developed countries have been criticised for their slow uptake on their GCF commitments and for re-channelling official development aid into the fund. Oxfam, for its part, openly censured Brussels for the short-term commitment.

“At a critical moment in the fight against climate change, Europe looks to be sitting back rather than stepping up,” said Lies Craeynest, Oxfam’s EU climate change expert.

Climate change negotiations have historically been influenced strongly by geopolitical and economic realities. In the wake of major political and economic shakeups across Europe, and with the US ramping up for a general election in November, most observers say to expect no more than the expected in Bonn.

ICTSD Reporting.

The draft makes direct reference to the accusation that the aviation scheme could motivated by factors in addition to reducing emissions.

“China objects to other countries and areas using climate change as an excuse to conduct protectionism in trade, or unilaterally levying carbon taxes or similar taxes on Chinese airlines, ships, etc.,” the draft states.

If this law passes, Chinese emissions standards will be applied across sectors such as power generation, iron and steel, construction, and oil and gas sectors, according to Point Carbon which has published an analysis of the draft. This will constitute a double burden to carbon-intensive industries globally because Chinese emissions standards will be imposed on top of the EU ETS standards.

Point Carbon’s Hongliang Chai says the effectiveness of the law will depend on the details of key issues such as benchmarking and allowance allocation of the national ETS, and the level of penalty for non-compliance. Chai, however, pans the proposed penalties in the current draft - a one-off fine in the range of €3,600-€24,000 - as “nothing more than pennies for large emitters in China.”

The drafting of China’s Climate Change Law is situated in a broader wave of international and corporate opposition to the inclusion of aviation emissions in EU ETS. In February, 23 countries including China, Russia, and Japan signed the Moscow joint declaration, which claims that the aviation scheme could spark a “trade war.” In the joint declaration, the 23 countries declared intention to contravene the ETS.

However, even as the pressure against the EU Commission ramps-up, Brussels has maintained that aviation emissions will stay in the emissions scheme. Isaac Valero-Ladrón, the spokesman for the European Climate Commission in February said that the debate is “not about trade wars at all.” In another statement, he said opposition groups are labelling the issue as a trade war only to create pressure to see if the EU will “cave.”

China recently announced a new national plan to cut aviation emissions, which it says would make Chinese airlines exempted. The EU ETS does not require countries with “equivalent measures” to participate in the scheme. It is not clear how, if at all, the draft law will factor into the national plan. EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard says the bloc’s delegation in Beijing is looking into the plan.

ICTSD Reporting; “China’s Draft Climate Change Law Backs Continuation of CDM Projects,” THOMSON REUTERS POINT CARBON, 14 May 2012; “EU climate boss: studying China’s airline CO2 plan,” REUTERS, 19 April 2012.